You are on page 1of 10
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDEDCOMPLAINT—No. C-08-02658 RMWCCL
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
E-FILED on
9/7/10IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONMANDANA D. FARHANG and M.A.MOBILE,Plaintiffs,v.INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,KHARAGPUR, TECHNOLOGYENTREPRENEURSHIP AND TRAININGSOCIETY, PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI,PALLAB DASGUPTA, RAKESH GUPTA,PRAVANJAN CHOUDHURY, SUBRATPANDA, and ANIMESH NASKAR,Defendants. No. C-08-02658 RMWORDER GRANTING IN PART ANDDENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKEAND MOTION TO DISMISS THIRDAMENDED COMPLAINT
[Re Docket Nos. 174, 175]
Defendant Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur ("IIT") moves to strike portions of theThird Amended Complaint ("TAC") and to dismiss the TAC. For the reasons set forth below, thecourt grants in part and denies in part the motion to strike and grants in part and denies in part themotion to dismiss the TAC.
I. MOTION TO STRIKE
"The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,impertinent, or scandalous matter." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). IIT moves to strike various portions of the
Case5:08-cv-02658-RMW Document201 Filed09/07/10 Page1 of 10
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDEDCOMPLAINT—No. C-08-02658 RMWCCL
2TAC, including references to defendant Gurashish Brar and claims for fraud and breach of fiduciaryduty. In the court's June 1, 2010 order, the court dismissed defendant Brar from this action and dismissed plaintiffs' claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty with prejudice. Plaintiffs do notoppose striking the following: references to Brar (the caption and paragraph 17), their fraud and  breach of fiduciary duty claims (paragraphs 74 through 96), and the prayer for exemplar damages(paragraph 2 of prayer for relief). The court therefore strikes the above-listed portions of the TAC.The court also strikes the following highlighted portions of the TAC as immaterial becausethey consist of legal argument, which does not belong in a complaint: paragraphs 6(c) through (e), paragraph 10 footnote 1, paragraph 26, paragraph 27(v), paragraph 32, paragraph 33(b), paragraphs45(b) through (e), paragraphs 47(a), (c), and (d), paragraphs 48(b) and (c), paragraph 49, paragraph60, paragraph 62, and paragraph 97. The court denies the motion to strike in all other respects.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS
IIT seeks dismissal of all claims in the TAC for failure to provide a "short and plainstatement" of the alleged claims and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim hasfacial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court todraw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
 Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citations omitted). The complaint must provide thegrounds for a plaintiff's entitlement to relief, which requires more than labels, conclusions, and aformulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.
 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 550 U.S.544, 555 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculativelevel."
 Id.
 
A.Standing
IIT argues that plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit because the technology at issue wasinvented by Brian Kenville. However, plaintiffs allege that "Mandana Farhang acquired the rights
Case5:08-cv-02658-RMW Document201 Filed09/07/10 Page2 of 10
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
 IIT disputes whether the IBM representative was part of the technical committee. However, on amotion to dismiss, "[a]ll allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light mostfavorable to the nonmoving party."
Cousins v. Lockyer 
, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009)(quoting
Silvas v. E*Trade Mortg. Corp.
, 514 F.3d 1001, 1003 (9th Cir. 2008)).
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD AMENDEDCOMPLAINT—No. C-08-02658 RMWCCL
3to Kenville's technology." TAC Ex. S2 at 1. The court thus denies IIT's motion to dismiss for lack of standing.
B.Breach of NDA
IIT contends that the TAC fails to state a claim for breach of a non-disclosure agreement("NDA"). The TAC alleges that on or about August 11, 2003, IIT entered into an NDA with plaintiffs. TAC ¶ 29. Under the terms of the NDA, IIT agreed to: (1) only disclose confidentialinformation to employees and contractors who are bound by a similar NDA ("Non-DisclosureProvision"); (2) not to "make, have made, use or sell for any purpose any product or other itemusing, incorporating, or derived from" plaintiffs' confidential information ("Non-Use Provision");and (3) to return all documents and other tangible items with plaintiffs' confidential informationupon termination of the NDA or upon written demand ("Return Provision").
 Id.
 
1.Breach of Non-Disclosure Provision
Plaintiffs allege that IIT breached the Non-Disclosure Provision by disclosing confidentialinformation to persons who were not bound by a similar NDA, including the IBM representativesitting on IIT's Incubation Society, members of the Indian Railways, and possibly other third parties. TAC ¶ 63(a). In particular, the TAC alleges that defendants disclosed confidential information in a presentation to a technical committee of the Incubation Society in 2005, that the IBM representativewas part of that technical committee, and that the IBM representative had not agreed to be bound byan NDA.
1
 
 Id.
 ¶¶ 45(c), 63(a). These factual allegations are sufficient to state a claim for breach of the Non-Disclosure Provision.
2.Breach of Non-Use Provision
Plaintiffs also claim that IIT breached the Non-Use Provision by making, having made,using, or selling products derived from plaintiffs' technology. TAC ¶ 63(b). As the court discussed in its June 1, 2010 order, the Non-Use Provision of the NDA directly conflicts with the alleged joint
Case5:08-cv-02658-RMW Document201 Filed09/07/10 Page3 of 10

Reward Your Curiosity

Everything you want to read.
Anytime. Anywhere. Any device.
No Commitment. Cancel anytime.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505